Even though in most countries obesity is on the rise, undernutrition is still a prevailing problem causing many deaths. In 2016, undernutrition was responsible for nearly half of all deaths of children under age 5 (Unicef, 2016). This problem will be increased by the expected worldwide population growth 0f 35% before 2025. An increasing percentage of the population will be urban, which is likely to lead to a shift in consumption patterns from staples to processed foods, fortified with more dairy and meat, which will ultimately require a larger amount of primary foodstuffs to produce. If the current rate of annual crop yield improvement is maintained into the future, there will be a huge gap between demand and supply in 2050 (Long et al, 2015). Many scientists suggest that Genetically modified foods (GM foods) are the best bet for feeding the world, in order to reduce undernutrition and the increasing gap between supply and demand (Scientificamerican, 2015).
GM foods are foods produced using organisms whose DNA has been changed using genetic engineering. These changes in DNA include the transfer of genes within and across species boundaries to produce improved or novel organisms. This can make foods resistant to certain types of disease. Current applications of the technology are common in cash crops such as corn and soya bean, but they can go as far as GM livestock (Wikipedia, 2017).
The reason why many scientists are so optimistic about GM foods and its possibility to feed the world is that the fact that GM is currently the fastest growth sector in agriculture (The balance, 2017). GM products are more resistant to disease, stay ripe longer, and grow more robustly. Products, such as the Flavr-savr Tomato, can reduce production costs by about 20%. Livestocks can also be raised inexpensively, being fed GM crops. This cost reduction in food production and extension in time that food remains edible, can possibly feed more people worldwide. Furthermore, some GM foods are engineered in a way that they can contain more nutrients, such as calcium or protein (Healthline, 2017). This can effectively target the problem of malnutrition, since it can supply countries that do not have acces to certain types of nutrient-rich foods with the specific nutrients that are lacking in the population’s diet.
Even though there are many supporters of GM foods, concerns consist about the application of GM technology, such as the following:
- The technology is relatively new. Extensive long-term research about GM foods’ effects is therefore not available. Concerns exist about the technology’s safety, linked to allergies, cancer and antibiotic resistance (Healthline, 2017).
- It is debatable whether GM foods can reach the places where undernutrition currently is most common. This concern is twofolded. First of all, many poor countries affected by undernutrition are not able to produce GM foods themselves and also restrict import of GM products. Second, producers of GM foods mostly have profits as their first aim. They produce foods that are eaten by people in rich countries, in order to optimise their profits (The balance, 2017).
In conclusion, although GM seems a promising way to reduce world hunger, it is still restricted by several concerns. Extensive research needs to be carried out before people will truly trust the safety GM crops. Furthermore, due to economic and political reasons, GM might not be as effective as possible in reducing current undernutrition in poor countries. However, when over time the population grows, income and consumption patterns shift, and the gap between supply and demand of foods widens, GM might provide a possible solution.
Sources:
https://data.unicef.org/topic/nutrition/malnutrition/
http://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(15)00306-2
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/food-matters/gmos-are-still-the-best-bet-for-feeding-the-world/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food
https://www.thebalance.com/can-genetically-modified-food-feed-the-world-375634
https://www.healthline.com/health/gmos-pros-and-cons#pros2
Interesting post Rosanne. Based on the need of food companies to increase the yield of all their products, i think there will only be more improvements for food production, which would have a positive impact. Do you think they will run into any specific problems going forward when it comes to regulation? For example, I can imagine that there is more resistance by organizations and activists to combat animal genetic modification in livestock, as some see it inhumane or unnatural.
@Shaffy Roel: That is an interesting question. Currently, there is a lot of government regulation already, and I would expect this to increase when the scale of genetic modification usage increases. Also, there are many concerns from environmental associations, traditional farmers and consumer groups, especially regarding safety and indeed humanity of practices. I personally consider this a good thing. Of course, as a consumer, I want my food to be healthy and created in a humane way. I believe that producers can do nothing else then to follow these demands. Yes, it might be more expensive for them, but ultimately they will reach a larger customer base and avoid risks, which would benefit them in the long run. I expect that the largest problem producers of GM foods will face, is that certain consumers will try to avoid GM-foods at all. In the supermarkets nowadays you can already see products with GMO-free tags.
But then, you can also find a lot of products with tags indicating how healthy an animal has lived (well, in theory; in practice, with products imported from outside of the EU, this is often literally impossible to truly know), and there are vegetarians and such as well. I don’t think such tags would be a problem, and it is good to be open and transparant about it.
Personally, I wouldn’t really care about it, but it might get people more ‘involved’ with their food – looking up the corporation that made the GM-food they want to buy – which would be a good thing, I think. I know the EU has a lot of regulations and such regarding genetic modifications, and that, very generally speaking, ‘Europe’ may be considered to be ‘anti-GM’, while the opposite holds true for the USA (or the Americas as a whole?). It’s a controversial subject, at any rate – there are a lot of documentaries and articles about Monsanto, for one.
That aside, I think your point about logistics being the main issue – how do we get the food to where it is needed? – is excellent. Doubly so if climate change is going ahead as it has been; a lot of prime agricultural land would be ruined, and in return we’d get a lot of deserts and dry Siberian taiga, both of which aren’t very useful for food production (though Russia is actually projected to experience agricultural growth, or is already experiencing this – but the problem here I believe, lies in the kind of crops that can be grown there, I’m not entirely sure). Unless, of course, GM can be a solution (sea farms, too, are an interesting possibility).
This is, however, why I am not really worried about food supply. There is projected to be a massive population growth all over Africa, many of which would travel northwards into Europe as their home countries offer less and less opportunities, but it remains to be seen how valid this scenario will be. But who knows, by that time we will have automated drone transport, or self-driving cars, or who knows what. I don’t think we’re heading for a Malthusian trap. After all, even though it isn’t wise to rely on vague future technology to save us, the Green Revolution happened even so.
And personally, I am munching on chocolate kruidnoten at this very moment. 😛
Dear Roy, I think you should really be concerned about food supply in the future. You already mentioned it, there is going to be a massive population growth in Africa and by 2050, we’ll need to feed two billion more people in the world. In addition to that, demand for meat has tripled in the last four decades while eggs consumption has increased sevenfold. Accordingly, it is also estimated that by 2050 the US will have to double its crop production to be able to satisfy the South Korean and Chinese demand for feeding their livestock.
More importantly, agriculture is amongst the largest to contributors to global warming, emitting more greenhouse gases than all our cars, trucks, trains, and airplanes combined.
Therefore, as we try to meet our food demand, we also need to try to avoid further destroying the planet.
Ideally, by using tech-advancements as well as organic practices we could find better ways to use the resources more efficiently and environmentally friendly. Shifting diets towards less meat consumption and forcing grocery stores, restaurants and even ourselves to waste less food could also help towards the dramatic food supply situation we will face in the future.
You can find more information about this challenge here: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/feeding-9-billion/